Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="apsuman" data-source="post: 241184" data-attributes="member: 1769">Ok, I will state some of my points again as nobody addressed them, and I am that egotistical.I understand your DM's assertion that a fighter type wiht a sword in his hand is a threat to anyone in striking range -- and indeed, that is realistic.However, a mage with prepared spells is also a threat to anyone in their striking range.  Surely if mages really existed, this too would be "realistic".Now, my big leap of faith.  Why is it that that your DM wants to make it easier for a a fighter to stop a mage but not for a mage to stop a fighter?  (also, the game already takes into account how well a character reacts to a threat, it is called his armor class).Given that in 3e the spells are prepared, not memorized, they are mostly cast already, the wizard simply completes the spell for it to activate.  They can do it quickly enough that they get a full move if that's all they do.  The initiative system makes us think serially, but the actions in combat are suppose to be parallel.  A fighter can make a single attack at his highest BAB and still get a 30' move.  Keep in mind that the DnD combat system is abstract, so one attack (that is one d20 "to hit" roll) might be just one powerful slash with his sword that hits his opponent and damages him through the armor, or he might feign and parry with quick jabs with the pointy end of his sword to strike an especailly sensitive spot, but either way he does that fast enough that he still gets a 30' move.Now the wizard can cast a spell and get the 30' move, implying that the wizard completing his spell is just as fast as that one "to hit" attempt by the fighter.  I imagine a fighter's single attack as a pretty quick thing, so should be the mage's spell completion.I am impressed that they have rules to make the attempt o disrupt the spell at all it happens so fast.So, while you DM might be very well intentioned, I think two things:1.  His rule solves a non-existant problem by creating one larger that is more imbalanced.2.  His rule is more unrealistic than the threat from the fighter.g!</blockquote>

Verification